The World's Oldest Profession

Liberty, definition - A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference.

Is it hypocritical that Prostitution is illegal while pornography is not?

Should they both be legal or illegal? Why or why not?

A fairly straightforward premise. Actors who make pornographic films and photos are paid for engaging in sexual activities. Prostitutes are paid for engaging in sexual activities. Both practices have their proponents, arguing from standpoints of civil liberties and individual freedom. Both practices have their opponents, arguing from standpoints of family values and morality.

However, prostitution is illegal in nearly all of the nation.....while pornography is rampant in video stores, newsstands and on the internet.

It's not illegal to sell any other manual services besides sex. I can hire my body to dig ditches; I can rent my body for medical experiments; I can also lease my body in the act of performing sexual acts, simulated sexual acts and simulated non-consensual acts.

It goes against every fiber of individual liberty to proclaim that I cannot receive or give money in exchange for sexual services. It is also the absolute height of hypocrisy when a third party can pay consenting adults to engage in sexual activity.

Coloring the argument of prostitution only in terms of street walkers is a distraction from the argument of individual freedom. Individual freedom is a decidedly conservative stance.

Why should individuals only be allowed some control over their body and its functions, but not others? Why are we constrained by state definitions of what constitutes sexual practices without regard to the many other practices that people find sexual fulfillment from? Does this not reek of hypocrisy when viewing this from a rational and logical perception? For example, I could conceivably engage the services of a professional dominatrix for money and not violate prostitution laws, but gain sexual satisfaction from the transaction. How is this any different than obtaining the services of a professional 'social worker' that includes the state definition?

Proponents of legalization advocate for government regulation of prostitution, whereas proponents of decriminalization support removing criminal penalties for prostitution. In other words, government doesn't regulate private, consensual individual transactions for materials and services....why would sex be any different?

An equally simple concept is that it is absurd to criminalize the monetary transaction of a service that can be legally provided for free. I understand why people are willing to surrender individual liberty to the state.....I just don't understand why people are willing to surrender that liberty.

Pornography involves a person or persons engaging in sexual acts for purpose of monetary payment. Prostitution involves a person or persons engaging in sexual acts for purpose of monetary payment.

The effects of alcohol are far, far......let me be repetitious.....far, far more pervasive and costly to society and the family structure than prostitution, by any and every study imaginable. It's simply not even debatable by rational people. Yet alcohol is legal and prostitution is not. Does the argument stem from the very simple and personal notion that they enjoy alcohol, yet eschew the activity of prostitution? If that's the case, then it's eminently logical to live one's life by those moral decisions, but entirely illogical to support forcing others to live by their choices.

Do they really support the cost in dollars and manpower for police departments to conduct sting operations and otherwise enforce prostitution laws, in the face of meager resources and mounting violent crime? All in pursuit of an effort that, while they make for entertaining episodes of COPS, are futile........in that prostitution will absolutely never whither away.

Does the criminalization of prostitution not stem from religion, since the majority of western religious doctrines consider any sex outside of the sanctity of marriage taboo or sinful........yet most western religions have no issue with alcohol? Do they enjoy living under restrictions imposed by adherents to an entity that not everybody believes in, instead of allowing individual citizens to make mature, consensual decisions with their body?

I have no issue with someone wishing to live his or her life by a moral code, but I certainly have issue when groups of individuals [usually under the guise of religion] wish to force others to live by that moral code. Since there are other legal activities that harm the family unit more so than prostitution or pornography.....is it not more just to allow adults the freedom to make consensual choices with their own bodies, in accordance with their own moral code?

The original intent of law is not to prevent immoral acts, it is to codify those acts which harm another citizen or their property. Sadly, that does not always hold true, as we are still bound by inane laws against consensual behavior based on nothing more than someone's moral interpretation.

Since criminal acts [aside from the artificial criminality of prostitution] of prostitution are second and third order effects.....criminalizing prostitution can only be logical if every act with our bodies that produces downstream related harmful effects are also criminalized.

Possible secondary and tertiary effects of human behavior cannot be criminalized without transforming society into an authoritarian and repressive state. An opinion that pornography or prostitution contributes to a dissolution of the 'family unit' is both not proven nor rational.

Creating laws to deter temptation or to prevent second and third order effects may make sense in some cases.....but when the medium is the human body and the act is a natural and biological function that in all other cases can still be conducted legally......it is in no way logical, rational nor just.